A. As regards KRW 1,000,000,000, May 1, 2010

A. International comprehensive soil construction (hereinafter “international comprehensive soil construction”) is a construction business operator who performs the construction work by being awarded a contract for the rearrangement project and rearrangement project for the land of Daegu-gun E (U.S.) with the Defendant’s Intervenor, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B Co., Ltd.”) is an international comprehensive soil construction project and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor cancelled the contract for the construction work on April 10, 2006 due to the discontinuance of construction due to the bankruptcy on April 6, 2006 between the international comprehensive soil construction project and the execution of construction work on April 206.

B. The decision of commencing the rehabilitation procedure on September 15, 2006 has been rendered on September 15, 2006 (the period for commencing the rehabilitation procedure is until October 30, 2006) after the application for commencing the rehabilitation procedure was filed with the Busan District Court 2006hap1.

On April 30, 2007, the rehabilitation plan approval order was issued, and the authorization decision was cancelled on September 21, 2007.2) The international comprehensive discussion again filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Busan District Court 2008hap1, and received the decision of commencing rehabilitation procedures on May 19, 2008 (the period of reporting rehabilitation claims is up to June 16, 2008). On the same day, the plaintiff and the F were appointed as joint managers, but later the F was resigned.

C. The former 1 international comprehensive discussion administrator filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the final judgment of the first and second lawsuits against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, which became final and conclusive, filed a preliminary claim against the Defendant’s Intervenor for the claim against the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s Intervenor’s right to execute the instant construction project still exists on the premise that there is no justifiable ground, and on the premise that the said contract was lawfully rescinded, the said obligor’s right to perform the construction project was paid to the Plaintiff.